Note also that the article blames a “group of Scottish noblemen” for having given up on Scottish independence. One cannot be blamed for smelling some Marxism in that explanation.
The story is much more complicated. There are religious, and even linguistic components in the history. Check it out! The last big attempt at “independence” was actually a civil war between the more primitive highlanders (Catholic and many speaking Scots Gaellic, a Celtic language) and the lowlanders, who were mostly Protestant, English-speaking, literate, and modernized — and progressing very swiftly economically and even in intellectual fields. The more English spread, and the better the roads, the more closely Scotland was linked to England, and the more successful was the united country.
To slap a border in there now would be crazy. Of course, it may happen. Fortunately, the border won’t get rid of English, and it won’t stop ideas. It may make it harder for workers to find jobs, and it may hurt the economy. Let’s hope that all the residents enjoy the game the nutty nationalists are playing.
What is the difference between a Scot and an Englishman? Genetic studies show that there is very little difference in bloodlines among the various parts of the British Isles. One may be proud of Scottish heritage (which I myself carry), but it is little different from the genetic heritage of anyone else around that part of the world.
As for the culture, the Scots are nowadays quite similar to the English: most speak English (all but a tiny minority), even though some have a pronunciation which sounds unintelligible to Americans, they can read and understand standard English. In religion, the Scots are mixed, as are the English, and that is not as big a point of division among Christians as in earlier times. So what possible basis is there for having a separate, independent state?
There are independent countries which are independent because of historical quirks, and we leave them alone, simply because disruption is worse than complete conformity. There are also breakaway independence movements which don’t make sense, and which are nothing but a game for certain politicians.
There is really little reason for English-speaking Canada to be separate from the US, but we have no problem with the situation, because our relationship is strong, and economic ties (and family ties) have grown in spite of the border. (Hillary and the anti-NAFTA people might hurt this, but the practical advantages of economic integration are very strong, and may deter even her).
Since they are all members of the European Union now anyhway, and behodlen to the European Constitution, would the independence of Scotland be more like Detriot becoming a state separate from Michigan? Who cares what the subregions are called? It is all ruled by the EU now anyway, or soon will be as time goes on...